Ten Steps to Conducting a Large, Multi-Site, Longitudinal Investigation of Language and Reading in Young Children

Language and Reading Research Consortium (LAARC), Kelly Farquharson, Kimberly A Murphy, Language and Reading Research Consortium (LAARC), Kelly Farquharson, Kimberly A Murphy

Abstract

Purpose: This paper describes methodological procedures involving execution of a large-scale, multi-site longitudinal study of language and reading comprehension in young children. Researchers in the Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC) developed and implemented these procedures to ensure data integrity across multiple sites, schools, and grades. Specifically, major features of our approach, as well as lessons learned, are summarized in 10 steps essential for successful completion of a large-scale longitudinal investigation in early grades.

Method: Over 5 years, children in preschool through third grade were administered a battery of 35 higher- and lower-level language, listening, and reading comprehension measures (RCM). Data were collected from children, their teachers, and their parents/guardians at four sites across the United States. Substantial and rigorous effort was aimed toward maintaining consistency in processes and data management across sites for children, assessors, and staff.

Conclusion: With appropriate planning, flexibility, and communication strategies in place, LARRC developed and executed a successful multi-site longitudinal research study that will meet its goal of investigating the contribution and role of language skills in the development of children's listening and reading comprehension. Through dissemination of our design strategies and lessons learned, research teams embarking on similar endeavors can be better equipped to anticipate the challenges.

Keywords: language development; longitudinal studies; protocols; reading comprehension; reading development.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The process by which data were sent to the primary site (OSU) for cleaning, coding, review, and release. The process was iterative between the primary site and all other sites in order to obtain accurate identification number lists and ensure that any possible missing data were found prior to site review and use of data for analyses.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Oversight and communication structure to support LARRC study 1 cross-site implementation. Note that the data management team was comprised of both technology and data team members.

References

    1. American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
    1. Baker L. (1984). Children's effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 588–597. 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.588
    1. Belacchi C., Carretti B., Cornoldi C. (2010). The role of working memory and updating in coloured raven matrices performance in typically developing children. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 22, 1010–1020. 10.1080/09541440903184617
    1. Bishop D. V. (2003). Test for Reception of Grammar: TROG-2 version 2. Pearson Assessment.
    1. Burchinal M. R., Neebe E. (2006). I. Data management: recommended practices. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 71, 9–23. 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00402.x
    1. Cain K., Oakhill J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Read. Writ. 11, 489–503. 10.1023/A:1008084120205
    1. Cain K., Oakhill J. V. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 683–696. 10.1348/000709905X67610
    1. Connor C. M., Morrison F. J., Fishman B. J., Ponitz C. C., Glasney S., Underwood P. S., et al. (2009a). The isi classroom observation system: examining the literacy instruction provided to individual students. Educ. Res. 38, 85–99. 10.3102/0013189X09332373
    1. Connor C. M., Piasta S. B., Glasney S., Schatschneider C., Fishman B. J., Underwood P., et al. . (2009b). Individualizing student instruction precisely: effects of child-by-instruction interactions on first graders' literacy development. Child Dev. 80, 77–100. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x
    1. Cronbach L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334.
    1. Cutting L. E., Scarborough H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Sci. Stud. Read. 10, 277–299. 10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
    1. Douglas K. M., Albro E. R. (2014). The progress and promise of the Reading for Understanding initiative. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26, 341–355. 10.1007/s10648-014-9278-y
    1. Dunn L. M., Dunn L. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th Edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
    1. Fitzgerald J., Spiegel D. L. (1983). Enhancing children's reading comprehension through instruction in narrative structure. J. Lit. Res. 15, 1–17. 10.1080/10862968309547480
    1. Gates A. I., McGinitie W. H. (2000). Gates-mcginitie Reading Tests, 4th Edn. Boston, MA: Riverside.
    1. Gillam R. B., Pearson N. (2004). Test of Narrative Language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    1. Gough P. B., Tunmer W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Rem. Spec. Educ. 7, 6–10. 10.1177/074193258600700104
    1. Hancock G. R., Mueller R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems, in Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future, eds Cudeck R., du Toit S., Sörborm D. (Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International; ), 195–216.
    1. Hoover W. A., Gough P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Read. Writ. 2, 127–160. 10.1007/BF00401799
    1. IES (2009). Reading for understanding research initiative, in Paper Presented at the Institute of Education Sciences. Available online at:
    1. Joshi R. M., Aaron P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: simple view of reading made a little more complex. Read. Psychol. 21, 85–97. 10.1080/02702710050084428
    1. Joshi R. M., Aaron P. G. (2012). Componential model of reading (cmr). J. Learn. Disabil. 45, 387–390. 10.1177/0022219411431240
    1. Kaufman A. S., Kaufman N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    1. Kline R. B. (2004). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    1. Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC) (2015a). Learning to read: should we keep things simple? Read. Res. Q. 1, 1–19.
    1. Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC) (2015b). The dimensionality of Spanish in young spanish-english dual language learners. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 58, 754–766. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0266
    1. Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC) (2015c). The dimensionality of language ability in young children. Child Dev. 86, 1948–1965. 10.1111/cdev.12450
    1. Leslie L., Caldwell J. S. (2011). Qualitative Reading Inventory, 5th Edn. Boston, MA: Pearson.
    1. Lonigan C. J., Wagner R. K., Torgesen J. K., Rashotte C. A. (2007). Test of Preschool Early Literacy. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    1. Murphy K., Farquharson K., LARRC (in press). Investigating profiles of lexical quality in preschool and their contribution to first grade reading.
    1. McCardle P., Scarborough H. S., Catts H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children's reading difficulties. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 16, 230–239. 10.1111/0938-8982.00023
    1. McDonald S.-K., Keesler V. A., Kauffman N. J., Schneider B. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educ. Res. 35, 15–24. 10.3102/0013189X035003015
    1. McNamara D. S., Magliano J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension, in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 51, ed Ross B. (Burlington, VT: Academic Press; ), 297–384.
    1. Nezworski T., Stein N. L., Trabasso T. (1982). Story structure versus content in children's recall. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 21, 196–206. 10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90561-8
    1. National Research Council (2002). Neem: A Tree for Solving Global Problems. The Minerva Group, Inc.
    1. Oakhill J. V., Cain K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Sci. Stud. Read. 16, 91–121. 10.1080/10888438.2010.529219
    1. Ong-Dean C., Huie Hofstetter C., Strick B. R. (2011). Challenges and dilemmas in implementing random assignment in educational research. Am. J. Eval. 32, 29–49. 10.1177/1098214010376532
    1. Perfetti C. A. (2007). Reading ability: lexical quality to comprehension. Sci. Stud. Read. 11, 357–383. 10.1080/10888430701530730
    1. Perfetti C. A., Landi N., Oakhill J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill, in The Science of Reading: A Handbook, eds Snowling M. J., Hulme C. (Malden, MA: Blackwell; ), 227–247.
    1. Pianta R. C., Karen M., Paro L., Hamre B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Manual, Pre-K. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
    1. Piasta S. B., Connor C. M., Fishman B., Morrison F. J. (2009). Teachers' knowledge of literacy, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Sci. Stud. Read. 13, 224–228. 10.1080/10888430902851364
    1. Piasta S. B., Yeager Pelatti C., Miller H. L. (2014). Math and science learning opportunities in preschool classrooms. Early Educ. Dev. 25, 445–468. 10.1080/10409289.2013.817753
    1. Rice M. L., Wexler K. (2001). Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment. Psychological Corporation.
    1. Rudd A., Johnson R. B. (2008). Lessons learned from the use of randomized and quasi-experimental field designs for the evaluation of educational programs. Stud. Educ. Eval. 34, 180–188. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.08.002
    1. Semel E., Wiig E. H., Secord W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th Edn. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
    1. Smith M. W., Dickinson D. K. (2002). Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Toolkit, Research Edn. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
    1. State of Florida Department of Education (2009). Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR). Available online at:
    1. Stein N. L., Glenn C. G. (1982). Children's concept of time: the development of a story schema, in The Developmental Psychology of Time, ed Friedman W. J. (New York, NY: Academic; ), 260–282.
    1. Sterba S. K., Christ S. L., Prinstein M. J., Nock M. K. (2011). Beyond treating complex sampling designs as simple random samples: data analysis and reporting, in Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology, eds Panter A. T., Sterba S. K., Panter A. T., Sterba S. K. (New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; ), 267–291.
    1. Torgesen J. K., Wagner R., Rashotte C. (2012). TOWRE-2 Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    1. US Department of Education Institute for Educational Sciences [IES] (2013). Assessing Attrition Bias. Available from
    1. Wagner E. H., Koepsell T. D., Anderman C., Cheadle A., Curry S. G., Psaty B. M., et al. . (1991). The evaluation of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's community health promotion grant program: design. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 44, 685–699. 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90029-9
    1. Wechsler D. (1992). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd Edn. London: The Psychology Corporation.
    1. Williams K. T. (1997). Expressive Vocabulary Test Second Edition (EVT™2). J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 42, 864–872.
    1. Woodcock R. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Revised, Examiner's Manual. American Guidance Service.
    1. Woodcock R. W., McGrew K. S., Mather N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
    1. Wolfersberger M. E., Reutzel D. R., Sudweeks R., Fawson P. C. (2004). Developing and validating the classroom literacy environmental profile (clep): a tool for examining the “print richness” of early childhood and elementary classrooms. J. Lit. Res. 36, 211–272. 10.1207/s15548430jlr3602_4
    1. Yeager Pelatti C., Piasta S. B., Justice L. M., O'Connell A. A. (2014). Language- and literacy-learning opportunities in early childhood classrooms: children's typical experiences and within-classroom variability. Early Child. Res. Q. 29, 445–456. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.004
    1. Yuill N., Joscelyne T. (1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders' story understanding. J. Educ. Psychol. 80, 152–158. 10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.152

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit